Bishop: What’s The Problem With Facebook?

Brian Bishop, GoLocalProv Guest MINDSETTER™

Bishop: What’s The Problem With Facebook?

I agree we need congressional hearings. Facebook has got terrible problems. Have you tried using it? You can’t use simple .html tags to make text italic or bold or, god forbid, create a hyperlink to text. And when you hit the return key, it posts your comment instead of giving you a new paragraph. Well I guess that’s fine for folks who just think it is like Twitter, because who needs paragraphs with 140 characters. But for us folks who tend to write 140 paragraphs, that’s hardly helpful.

Oh, my mistake, people aren’t upset about what a clunky backwards interface Facebook has. People are worried if they say “I like Trump” on Facebook that the campaign might figure it out and ask them to share a message. Worse, they might check out who your friends are and see if they like Trump.

Who’s really worried?

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Actually it seems most likely the people who are worried about this are the people who don’t like Trump and wouldn’t want him to connect with anyone who does. They were fine when Facebook turned a blind eye to Obama’s campaign overrunning the site’s terms of use, but if that kind of behavior gave any kind of a leg up to Trump it can’t be tolerated.

Or maybe they are worried that if Facebook finds out you like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren then those skeevy bastards at Cambridge Analytica will send someone out to slash your tires the night before the election.

It is certainly fair to say that Cambridge Analytica didn’t have the same knowing allegiance of Trump nation that the Obama campaign had from its Facebook recruits, but I hardly think any of the Trumpeteers are particularly miffed. Maybe a few folks are feeling like they were tricked into voting for Trump after the omnibus budget resolution, but it isn’t as if they would have preferred Hilary Clinton’s budget or the protracted environment of condemnation in the main stream media that would have come with any prolonged government shutdown.

Still, the butterfly’s wings are at work here, and maybe with just a few less bits of targeted cheer leading, they might simply have sat on their hands on election day and simply lived with the resulting Clinton presidency. After all, who wants folks rousting about in their cyber-underware? Makes one wonder, though, why everyone trots around in their skivvies on the net to begin with if they are so afraid of being caught with their pants down.

I do believe that Shakespeare said it first: “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Facebook. But in ourselves.

Who’s Worse?

But this was far more nefarious than simply mining social media posts for mentions of Trump and Clinton as David Harsanyi observed in the National Review:

“Former Cambridge Analytica contractor Christopher Wylie told CNN that while at the company, he helped build a “psychological warfare weapon” to “exploit mental vulnerabilities that our algorithms showed that [Facebook users] had.” So, in other words, he worked in the advertising business.”

I’m just waiting for the parade of Hilary Clinton voters, whose mental vulnerabilities were exploited to convince them to vote for Trump, to take the field here. Surely Congress will hear from a panel of these folks following Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony. It was that old one-two punch they’ll say. If those enormous Russian expenditures of several hundred dollars a pop building two Hilary for Prison floats didn’t get them into Trump’s column, surely a dose of Cambridge Analytica’s “secret sauce” must have turned the trick.

And then of course there will be a panel of ‘friends’ who never signed up for the Obama Campaign, nor took the psychological profile test whose results fed the Cambridge Analytica operation. They just got turned in willy-nilly by someone who had. How could Facebook let us down like this, they’ll say.

Whatever can we do?

Of course Facebook has always had a tool for this kind of thing that is so well known its actually in the dictionary. It’s called “unfriending”. And if you think that your privacy is being invaded by campaigns mining social media to see which way you are tending, there is tool for that too: keep your mouth shut.

So all this accusation slinging: “Obama did it first”; “Cambridge Analytica did it worst”, is just so much pabulum for social media. If you shared one or the other perspective, then the next Cambridge Analytica already knows which way you lean.

But that’s not the point says the left, Facebook is like a public utility and they were supposed to keep that data safe, so lets’ sick the government on them (just as soon as they are done helping Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren). Meanwhile conservatives who have fought to keep the government’s mitts off of the internet wonder if they should retain that principle as Facebook is suddenly making nice with progressives to atone for not having had algorithms that censored “Trump for President” as hate speech.  Every ‘fix’ that we’ve seen from facebook seems to cut against right wing users: censoring their posts, squelching the sharing of anything but the mainstream media, and throwing right leaning political consultants off the site.

But the answer is not to conjure up some theory of fairness on Facebook and write it into regulations. If you don’t think Facebook is fair, you have the ultimate weapon: #deletefacebook. Indeed this is the weapon that those leaning right rightly offer when the FCC comes sniffing around trying to figure out how that right-wing gossip Drudge can still have the most direct traffic of any newsite on the web after 20 years. Why isn’t his time over and what can they do to end it, or make him learn to love the left. But Drudge isn’t a damn public utility. If you don’t like Drudge don’t read it. 

Of course with all the progressives like Elon Musk jumping off Facebook, it just might be counterproductive for conservatives to follow suit. Maybe we’ll be the only ones who can be found on social media in the coming election – albeit I think most people take this whole argument with a grain of salt and are paying it as much heed as the old Y2K apocalypse. So only folks with their head perhaps too far into the game are going anywhere.

But the good ole’ mainstream media has their teeth sunk into this like there is really something to watch. Jillian York wrote for NBC: “What #DeleteFacebook tech bros don't get: Without viable alternatives, walking away is still a privilege . . . being among the first in your friend group to leave can be lonely and not a lot of fun”.

Such a shame. I haven’t cried so much since that chick flick I watched last night (which lets Netflix know I’ll be a sucker for the next one). After all, look what happened when folks walked away from Myspace . . . . I mean, howda ya think Tom feels?!

What are the alternatives?

And “no viable alternatives”? How quickly we forget blogs and email, phone calls, or, god forbid, a church social.

What really is the problem with folks walking away from Facebook? It is the loss of eyes for advertisers, and, of course, everyone bucking up their privacy settings reduces the precision and thus the value of those ads. So the problem is that the folks who really pay for Facebook, i.e. folks like Cambridge Analytica, many perhaps more savory but no less salivating over your predilections, will stop paying.

And then what’s going to happen? Is your monthly bill going to go up? Oh yeah, you don’t pay anything for Facebook. For a bunch of folks who pay nothing for this we’re doing a damn lot of complaining.

Brian Bishop is on the board of OSTPA and has spent 20 years of activism protecting property rights, fighting over regulation and perverse incentives in tax policy.

17 Biggest News Stories of 2017

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.